'A Bettre Felawe Sholde Men Noght Fynde': Satirical Criticism of Chaucer's Friar, Summoner, and Pardoner

(1)

‘A Bettre Felawe Sholde Men Noght Fynde’

Satirical Criticism of Chaucer’s Friar, Summoner and Pardoner

by

Nicolai Svendsen Senumstad

Master’s Thesis

Department of Foreign Languages University of Bergen

May 2018

(2)

(3)

Sammendrag

I denne oppgaven tar jeg for meg hvordan Geoffrey Chaucer bruker satire i sin Canterbury Tales til å belyse sosial kritikk av middelalderkirken i England, og hvordan denne kritikken gjør leserne oppmerksom på Kirkens misbruk av makt og dens materielle fokus. Chaucer fremstiller pilgrimmene the Friar, the Summoner, og the Pardoner på en humoristisk, men likevel kritikkverdig måte. Denne kritikken av karakterene som er representanter for Kirken, blir gradvis mer krass og seriøs som et symbol på at Kirken har mistet sin guddommelige tilknytning. For å forstå bruken hvordan satire er brukt i Canterbury Tales, bruker jeg både en middelaldersk og en moderne forståelse av satire som belyser ulike perspektiv på satirens funksjon og mål. En satirisk tekst angriper ofte institusjonell umoralsk opptreden ved å gjøre narr av det, og selv om forfatterens verk er fiksjon, overbeviser hun leserne sine om at det hun angriper, er latterlig. Ved å la fiksjonen være virkelighetsnær og med en klar moralsk

standard, engasjerer forfatteren leserne sine slik at de kan identifisere seg med «ofrene» i teksten, som igjen får ringvirkninger på hvordan de opplever sin egen livssituasjon.

Selv om Chaucer ikke gjorde noe nytt og radikalt ved å fremstille datidens mektigste institusjon i et dårlig lys, så skaper han et bilde som avslører kirkelig misbruk, og opplyser leserne om dette misbruket. I kapittel 1 diskuterer jeg hvordan satiren fremstår som lett og morsom, hvordan den angriper tiggerordenene som the Friar representerer, og hvordan dette belyses i både portrettet hans, og i the Summoner’s Tale. I kapittel 2 tar jeg for meg hvordan kritikken blir stadig mer krass og seriøs tilknyttet the Summoner og representasjonen av han i the Friar’s Tale. I kapittel 3 går den satiriske kritikken fra å være vits om en fis, til at tre forbrytere dreper hverandre i the Pardoner’s Tale. Alvorligheten i fremstillingen av både portrettet til the Pardoner og fortellingen hans belyser hvor alvorlig Kirkens misbruk er, og hvor stor avstand den har tatt fra sin guddommelige funksjon og mål til fordel for

(4)

Acknowledgements

First and foremost, I want to thank my supervisor Laura Sætveit Miles, whose boundless knowledge and precise language guided me through this arduous journey of a thesis. Without her, this thesis would not see the light of day. I also want to thank my family who supported me throughout and believed in me. Their support has been invaluable. Lastly, I want to thank my roommates and my friends, who had to endure my company with my never-ending complaints first-hand, and I apologize for the trauma I might have caused you.

I am dedicating this thesis to my late cat, Tussa (1995-2016), who never cared for books.

Only sleep, food, and pets. In that order.

(5)

(6)

Introduction

“A better felawe shilde men noght fynde,” refers to Geoffrey Chaucer’s (1340s-1400) Summoner, who, along with the Friar and the Pardoner, is ironically praised in the Canterbury Tales to describe the exact opposite. Chaucer’s brilliant satirical depiction of medieval social classes in the Canterbury Tales has made him and his works popular for many centuries. While the notion of what satire has changed through the ages, there is still something within Chaucer’s literary works that entices and beguiles his readers which makes it feel contemporary. Chaucer’s choice of words, his descriptions, and the way he uses satire to criticize his own contemporary society, is still applicable to many areas and social issues one faces today. The medieval Church was a target for Chaucer’s severe criticisms, just like many religious institutions today, which are also under scrutiny for different abusive

practices. However, as many of the medieval Church’s functions and institutions have

dissolved over time, it is possible to perceive these changes through Chaucer’s literary works.

While we cannot know what Chaucer thought, we can, interpret his satirical characterizations through different critical perspectives, such as modern and medieval understandings of satire, which is what I seek to do in this thesis.

In the Canterbury Tales, Chaucer employs a satirical depiction of the corrupt pilgrims the Friar, the Summoner, and the Pardoner as a social critique to highlight the abuses within the Church, and to teach his readers to be aware of these abuses. Chaucer does this by having the satire against the pilgrims evolve from a light-hearted and witty mood, to become dark, and much more intense and serious. These satirical moods are based on the development and severity of what is at stake in the pilgrims’ Tales. The Friar, the Summoner, and the Pardoner are all presented in that particular order in the General Prologue, although not consecutively of each other. Although all three pilgrims are faced with hard criticism, I argue that this

(8)

succession represents a satirical gradient of the pilgrims, where each of them is portrayed from the least criticized pilgrim to the most denounced pilgrim.

Their physical appearance parallels their moral corruption, and by comparing them in that particular order, it helps to show how Chaucer criticizes the medieval Church for

changing from a spiritual focus to a material one. Chaucer highlights the correlation between how the pilgrims are presented physically, and how they are presented morally, by creating a parallel between physicality and inner morality. In this parallel, he gives suggestions of how the superficial aspects of the Church replace the spiritual aspects. In this thesis, I put the pilgrims’ physical appearance and their inner morality in comparison to each other and their parallel fictional characters, and the comparison draws upon contemporary attitudes towards these clerical professions. This type of comparison has, to my knowledge, not been done before, and I use the comparison to track Chaucer’s criticism deterioration of the Church, while I also argue for the progressive increase in critical seriousness between these three characters.

Chaucer portrays the critique as such, I argue, not to provide solutions for the social critique, but to warn his readers about abuses by having the laity in his stories serve as exemplars for his audience, as a way to educate them. The exemplars are represented by people who these pilgrims try to trick, and the laity’s purpose in the stories, I argue, is to prevent Chaucer’s contemporary audience, as members of a Christian society, from being tricked by the pilgrims’ real-life parallels. In this thesis, I will address how satire develops to show the pilgrims’ moral corruption, and how the critique becomes more severe based on the pilgrims’ physical appearance, their actions, and what their Tales represent. By addressing modern and medieval purposes of satire, this can illustrate the degree criticism directed towards the medieval Church and the clerical professions.

(9)

The pilgrims are introduced in the General Prologue, where their physical and moral attributes are described, and these depictions are elaborated upon in their respective

Prologues and Tales. Chaucer introduces the characters, and the relationship between the Friar and the Summoner, who are portrayed as rivals, and their Tales are used to “quite” each other, meaning to “take revenge” (MED). The Friar’s pleasant physical appearance and manner overshadow his corrupt moralities, and he uses witty and light satire to make jokes about the people around him, especially when he is joking about the Summoner. The Friar’s Tale serves as a joke on summoners, where Chaucer, through the Friar, addresses common medieval attitudes towards them to exemplify their degree of corruption. However, the Friar ends his Tale on a light note where summoners are given the opportunity to redeem

themselves if they stop abusing their position. The Summoner takes offense at these jokes, and escalates the situation with his revenge tale, while at the same time appearing both physically and morally corrupt. The Summoner’s Tale is a direct response to the Friar’s Tale, where friars are mocked by using typical mendicant satire, but to a slightly more serious degree than what the Friar did. The seriousness becomes apparent in the Summoner’s Prologue, where he, instead of returning the favor of letting the Friar redeem himself if he changed his ways as well, the Summoner blatantly condemns the Friar straight to Hell. The Summoner ends his Prologue on a significantly darker note than the Friar ever did. However, as the Summoner’s Tale reflects the Friar’s wittiness more than the Summoner’s crudeness, the Tale ends on a hilariously absurd note instead, not reflecting the Summoner’s Prologue.

The Pardoner, appearing as the last pilgrim in the General Prologue, represents the most criticized pilgrim of the three where his physical description can be considered as perverse.

He tells a tale that is not funny, but rather serious and sad, which represents ultimate moral corruption. However, the ethical implications of each of the pilgrims’ tales differ from each other.

(10)

For the Friar joking around, there is little at stake for his level of satiric wit, where the most severe consequence for the Summoner, whom the Friar is mocking, is the loss of

dignity. For the Summoner, however, with his crude and violent demeanor, the loss of dignity is not enough. The Summoner’s stake, in addition to a loss of dignity, is his own physical well-being on earth, which is represented through his sickly appearance and corrupt morals.

Lastly, the Pardoner’s stakes are the most severe. While addressing corrupt individuals, they can either be expulsed, or be rehabilitated which is possible with both the Friar and

Summoner. However, with the Pardoner, the stakes are too high.

Through his abnormal physicality and humorless Tale, the Pardoner’s stakes are the fate of not only his own soul, but of everyone’s souls. His own soul is at stake for the suggested physical inability to procreate, which by extension symbolizes the Church’s spiritual inability to generate more followers. What puts the people’s souls at stake, is that they buy fake relics from the Pardoner to reduce their temporal punishment in Purgatory and go to Heaven faster.

In the rest of the introduction that follows, I will provide a brief discussion of

Chaucer’s life and the Canterbury Tales, followed by a lengthy discussion of satire, where I address how understandings of modern and medieval satire can be used to illuminate what Chaucer is doing in the Canterbury Tales in regards to satire. The relevant individual Tales are in this order:

• The Friar’s Tale is the seventh Tale told over all, but of the three pilgrims discussed in this thesis, it is told by the Friar, and it is about a corrupt summoner. This tale is discussed in the second chapter in the context of discussion about the Summoner pilgrim.

• The Summoner’s Tale comes after the Friar’s Tale as a response to it, and is the eighth Tale told overall. It is about a corrupt friar, and it is discussed in the first chapter in the context of the discussion about the Friar pilgrim.

(11)

• The Pardoner’s Tale is the fourteenth Tale told overall, and is the last Tale to be

discussed in this thesis in chapter three. It is a self-enclosed tale and does not refer to the professions of the other pilgrims.

The first chapter will discuss how the Friar represents mendicancy, the practice of begging, and how and to what degree Chaucer criticizes what the Friar represents. The first chapter also suggests that by drawing on contemporary attitudes towards Friars, Chaucer’s satirical remarks on the Friar are hidden behind his charming exterior, only to be fully realized by the immoral actions of the friar character who is presented in the Summoner’s Tale. In the second chapter, I will address how the degree of Chaucer’s satirical criticism of the Summoner becomes more serious in the way his revolting physical appearance reflects a severe lack of morals, which in turn represents a diseased Church. I will address how this serious satirical tone differs from how Chaucer presents the Friar, and how this affects the summoner in the Friar’s Tale. In the third and final chapter, I will present Chaucer’s Pardoner as the most criticized pilgrim based on his perverted physical appearance and immoral actions. I will discuss how his physical appearance represents a Church that has lost its spiritual ability to reproduce or generate followers, and to care for the soul of others. I will discuss the loss of spiritual connection demonstrated in the Pardoner’s Tale, where the inability to perceive what is figurative results in the loss of divine grace or inability to be spiritually redeemed.

In the conclusion, I will discuss my findings on how medieval and modern

understandings of satire illuminate Chaucer’s characterization of the pilgrims and what they represent. I will also address how the laity in the different tales, who were potential victims of abuse, but managed to escape their abuser by various means, can function as positive

exemplars for the readers.¹

1 In this thesis, I have used the Riverside Chaucer, 3rd edition, edited by Larry D. Benson as my primary text. I

(12)

Chaucer and the Canterbury Tales

There is not a whole lot known about Geoffrey Chaucer’s life. Nothing on his childhood, education, or personal imperfections which can be attributed to his inspirations for writing, nor any evidence of “Chaucer’s life as a man of letters” (Evans 9). However, the records that do exist, consist mainly of legal documents such as house leases, records of expenses and witness statements (Evans 9). What we do know about Chaucer, is that he was born sometime in the early 1340s and that he was the only child of a wealthy wine merchant. He lived

through the Black Plague, became a royal servant, and perhaps through his own virtue and family fortune, rose through the ranks to become a royal esquire, meaning a title of high social class. Through his connections, he met and married lady-in-waiting Phillippa, who became his wife in 1366. Together they had two sons, Thomas and Lewis, and possibly a daughter, Elizabeth, however, the evidence for this is not clear (Evans 13). Chaucer had friends in high places, and worked on behalf of both Edward II and Richard II, while also enjoying connection within the king’s inner circle, such as the Duke of Lancaster, John of Gaunt (Evans 12). Chaucer’s poetic career, Ruth Evans states, began in the late 1360s, when he wrote the Book of the Duchess, which was influenced by French poetry, and dedicated to the Duke’s late wife, Blanche (Evans 12).

There are no records or evidence of how Chaucer was exposed to literature to which he seems to know a lot about, and one can only speculate that he was exposed to classical, French, and Italian literature while at court and through traveling. As a poet, he became widely known for his work the Canterbury Tales, which he began to write in the last decade of his life, starting around 1387 (Evans 12, 15). While there are no official records of

Chaucer’s death, his death is “customarily accepted to be 25 October 1400” (Evans 16).

Concerning his last literary work, the Canterbury Tales, it is not known whether he finished it or not, but due to its fragmentation, one can assume that Chaucer did not finish it completely.

(13)

The Canterbury Tales is a compilation of stories told by pilgrims, who after a long winter, are ready to pilgrimage from Southwark to Canterbury. The pilgrims, who number almost thirty, are organized by the host of the inn Tabard, Harry Bailly, who decides that the pilgrims will tell two tales each on the way to and back from Canterbury. This kind of

storytelling might be influenced or inspired by Boccaccio’s Decameron. Chaucer presents his General Prologue with a range of characters from almost every social class in England: a sergeant of law from Lincolnshire, a clerk from Oxford, a reeve from Norfolk, a lawyer, a friar, a summoner, a pardoner from the areas surrounding London, and so forth. Each of the storytellers is presented with “a rich vitality that is without precedent”, serving as exceptional individual examples, while at the same adding another dimension to the institutions they represent (Pratt xx). Pilgrimages had during Chaucer’s time been firmly established, and while the greatest shrine to visit was in Jerusalem, the most famous and popular shrine in England was the shrine of St. Thomas at Canterbury (Pratt xx). In the General Prologue Chaucer displays great knowledge of each of the pilgrims’ professions, such as the Yeoman’s knowledge of alchemy and the Doctour of Phisik’s medical prowess.

In addition to his extensive professional knowledge, Chaucer also gives each of the pilgrims agency, so that they are at liberty to control the order of the tales themselves, to argue with each other, and to dispute authority. When the narrator, Chaucer himself, does intercede, the pilgrims reject what he says, which creates a narrative that is not guided by a clear moral voice. The narrator throughout the story is a passive figure, perhaps to bring out the strong personalities of the other pilgrims more. Even the Host, Harry Bailly, who Chaucer seems to give a sort of authority, is disputed and contested, as is shown when he intercedes on behalf of the Summoner to the Friar’s Tale, who promptly tells him to mind his own business, because the Summoner does apparently not need anyone to speak for him. By creating a

(14)

dynamic group of pilgrims, and giving them agency, Chaucer makes the fiction of the Canterbury Tales seem real and entertaining.

The General Prologue consists of descriptive portraits of the pilgrims. These portraits shed light on underlying conflicts, and they reveal contrasts between the pilgrims and society as to attest to the readers that this is real. Chaucer sometimes obscures the portraits by the use of puns, suggestive and ambiguous language, to show that there is more to each of the

pilgrims than what meets the eye. Many of the portraits in the General Prologue offer a complexity in “conflicting purposes and ideals,” where important questions about morality and political and social change arise (Pratt xxiii). Chaucer’s attention to the rapid economic and political changes in the context of the late fourteenth century, is reflected in the

Canterbury Tales where the established authority is challenged. The Catholic Church, as an established authority, is not only challenged by reformers’ and laity’s discontent about the state of the Church, but also by the rising power of the merchant class, and by peasants’ and crafters’ economic strains and ambitions (Phillips 2).

Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales is a satirical commentary on these social issues that challenge the Church, where he through an abundant setting of themes, allusions, digressions, and moral values represents mankind in all its vices and virtues. As Helen Phillips states:

“[Chaucer’s] writing illustrates well the way that clarity, depth and perceptiveness in narrative depiction of society can expose the weak points, omissions and conflicts inherent in a

dominant ideology” (11). In relation to the topic of this thesis, Chaucer does in fact expose weak points concerning the Church and its agents. He does this through satirical

characterizations of his pilgrims where he shows how they fail in their professional duties as a result of moral decay and giving parables to educate his readers.

(15)

Satire in the Middle Ages

Originating in ancient Rome, satire has had a rich literary tradition, as well as a tradition in performance arts such as acting, singing, and dancing. Satire is, simply put, an “artistic form

… in which human or individual vices, follies, abuses, or shortcomings are held up to censure by means of ridicule, derision, burlesque, irony, parody, caricature, or other methods,

sometimes with an intent to inspire social reform” (Britannica). There are many distinct forms of satire, such as Juvenalian and Horatian within the classical tradition, and in medieval satire, one can find Latin satire and estates satire among others. What these different kinds of satires share, is the tradition of directing attention to social problems, possibly as an attempt to stimulate the audiences’ decisions and actions, or as an attempt to improve the current social situation for the better through a wide range of emotions. In the words of Ruben Quintero, satirists can be compared to social watchdogs where they “rouse [the audience] to put out the fire” by encouraging a “need for the stability of truth by unmasking imposture, exposing fraudulence, shattering deceptive illusion, and shaking us from our complacency and

indifference” (4). While emotions play an important part in social change, acting as a driving force, it is the decisions and any possible actions that comprise the final stage, before change supposedly happens.

In the Middle Ages, satire was popular because it played an important social role as it was used to ridicule a variety of social classes and individuals ranging from peasants to nobles, and to institutions such as the Church. In medieval Europe, the three most famous satirical works were arguably Chaucer’s the Canterbury Tales, William Langland’s Piers Plowman, and Jean de Meun’s French Roman de la Rose, where the two first mentioned originated on the British Isles. These three works share similar approaches to social criticism by instructing the estates to change for the better, and Ben Parsons states that in “the medieval theory of satire, most critics tend to focus on the strand of commentary which treats satire

(16)

primarily as a tool for instruction” (Parsons 107). This instruction functioned as a set of moral lessons, to which the literate, which included the clergy and upper classes, were exposed to.

Paul Miller examines this tool of instruction in medieval satire, arguing that it was a “type of ethical verse, ranging in tone between bitter indignation, mocking irony, and witty humor, which in forthright, unadorned terms censures and corrects vices in society and advocates virtues” (82). In this understanding of satire in the Middle Ages, medieval satire has a didactic form, where it serves to direct its audience towards an ideal.

Medieval satire, in contrast to classical satire, does not always conform to formalist patterns, and it can be found in a variety of literary works with different genres and structural patterns. This disregard of formalist satirical patterns can make medieval satire difficult to recognize because of its episodic appearance within other works. John Peter points out that

“medieval literature … tends to be impersonal, generalizing, abstract, and often allegorical; it is addressed to an audience that may feel guilty of the behavior being criticized; and its chief purpose is to correct vice, not merely denounce it” (Kendrick 53). This view does not always account for every work of medieval satire, but it helps to bring out contrasts in order to distinguish medieval satire from classical satire on a general basis. Laura Kendrick holds however that “medieval satire differs from classical satire, inevitable to the extent that medieval societies (agrarian and feudal, but increasingly commercial) and their [Catholic]

values differed from those of the classical world” (53). In turn, this means that even though medieval satirists were influenced by classical satire, medieval satire was driven forward by Christians values. This type of satire targeted different social groups that could concern corruption of the clergy or the laity’s greed (Kendrick 53).

From a medieval Christian perspective, satire was thus understood as a “fundamentally charitable act motivated by the concern for one’s neighbor [,] rather than a desire to do him harm” (Kendrick 54). Medieval satire was therefore often seen by later Elizabethan satire

(17)

theorists as “lamentable deviation” from the standards “set by the classical pagan writers”

(Griffin 12). Classical satire was thus turned by medieval satirists from targeting individuals and contemporary society in either a comedic Horatian style or a contemptuous Juvenalian style, into “a more deliberately comprehensive criticism covering the vices of the different estates of society in hierarchical order” (Kendrick 54).

The criticism of these hierarchical social orders in the Middle Ages was a dominant and popular type of satire, which developed into a modern term called estates satire, to which Phillips has defined estates satire as:

a broad range of medieval writings describing representative members of different

‘estates’ (ranks or professions) and the sins to which each social rank was prone. ...

The range of professions varies from text to text but most estates satire began with clerics (for example, popes, cardinals, bishops, priests, monks, nuns, and sometimes other educated professions like lawyers and doctors), moved on to those who rule and govern (kings, barons, knights, etc.), and then those who work (merchant, burgesses, peasants, etc.) (23).

Roughly these estates are divided into oratores, bellatores, laboratores, respectively, those who pray, those ones who fight, and those who labor, consisting of a wide range of working classes. The general division of social classes allows the satirist to criticize fictional

individuals, and thus what they represent, namely their estate. Without turning fully to a Juvenalian satire of hate and scorn, nor of a Horatian satire of comedy, medieval satirists could keep their writing from targeting specific individuals with slander, while still be able to target “anyone” with full satiric power due to its impersonality. They could therefore still operate within the limits of estate satire.

Medieval estate satire ought to function within such an ideal setting as Phillips’

definition proposes, and Sadenur Doğan argues that the estate model is used by Chaucer “to put forward his arguments about the social characteristics and roles of the medieval people who are expected to talk, behave, wear and live in accordance with what their social group requires” (50). This means that, ideally, characters should be limited to the boundaries of the

(18)

estate model so that the Parson, the Knight, and the Plowman who represent correct social, moral, and spiritual values are fully set in the estate hierarchy they “belong” to, because they were important in a social and religious construct. On the other hand, the Friar, Summoner, and Pardoner, based on contemporary attitudes towards them, fulfill the traditional definitions of what bad friars, summoners and pardoners do. The estates satire shows how the pilgrims stray from an ideal social, moral and spiritual monasticism like the Parson, Knight and Plowman presumably comply to. Contrary to, for example, Langland’s Pierce Plowman, Chaucer does, however, not limit his characters completely to the boundaries of the estate model.

Chaucer uses the estates model for his own purpose, playing on social stereotypes to show how the different estates fail in representing the ideal version of the estate. He shows his audience that our own view of this kind of hierarchy is not absolute, but that it depends on our own position in the world. The foundational work on Chaucer’s estate satire, is Jill Mann’s Chaucer and Medieval Estates Satire (1973). In her book, Mann covers the General Prologue as an example of estates satire, and the pilgrims’ irregular order to how Chaucer deviates from the tradition. She further demonstrates how Chaucer manipulates his text to fit within a

unique pattern of estates satire. Mann states that Chaucer, “more than once, uses the estates concept against itself: the notion of specialised duties, when taken to its limits, destroys the idea of a total society in which all have their allotted place and relation to each other” (7).

Chaucer shows his readers the failures of social classes in light of a social ideal (Mann 7). He does this through the use of social stereotypes because “satire takes on a historical life of its own, perpetuating both specific ways of observing reality and conceptual frameworks within which it can be organised” (Mann 8). This framework is called ‘social stereotypes’ by Mann, and it can be used possibly as a source for the satiric technique in the General Prologue because of the way it conveys a traditional image of a character belonging to a specific group,

(19)

be it an ethnic, social, or moral group (8). Social stereotypes “are transmitted by a variety of means, of differing degrees of formality, ranging from proverbs and anecdotes to learned treatises” (Mann 8). The transmission of Chaucer’s characters contributes to and reflects social stereotypes, which are vital parts of their descriptions.

Besides Jill Mann’s influential work on estates satire, other influential scholars such as Helen Cooper, Helen Phillips, Ian Forrest, and Guy Geltner, have written articles or books about satire against the Church in the Canterbury Tales, however, none has discussed this in relation to the three pilgrims. This thesis shows that it is possible to gain a deeper

understanding of Chaucer’s satire against the medieval Church by putting the three pilgrims in direct comparison, which has not been done before.

In order to stimulate a reaction of amusement with the audience of the pilgrims’

interests, Chaucer provides detailed, elaborated descriptions of each of the characters’

abilities and actions, to make sure that the audience is aware that the pilgrims all are the best within their respective trade or profession. Mann argues that “an estate can be typified in two ways: Chaucer can evoke the qualities that should go with the profession, the ‘idealised version’; alternatively, he can evoke malpractices and frauds which usually go with it in actuality, the ‘normal version’” (14). Chaucer does this, because, as Mann puts it: “the estates are not described in order to inform us about their work, but in order to present moral

criticism” (198). With the descriptions of the band of rogues at the end of the General Prologue, Chaucer entertains his audience, but in their exceptional abilities to deceive and graft people, the amusement comes from a parodic representation of their skills because they direct the audience’s attention towards moral criticisms of each estate.

The moral criticism that Chaucer conveys through his texts, results in each of the estates failing to fulfill their professional duties. Chaucer’s portrayal of each of the social classes’ failings in their duties is represented as though they are eccentric individuals and not

(20)

solely a representation of an estate. This way, the characters fit in with a social stereotype, in that the Pardoner enjoys dressing ornately and selling fake relics, while the Parson spends his time being devoted to God (Mann 14). By this, I mean that Chaucer tries to pass the pilgrims off as independent individuals with ties to their estate through social stereotypes, while they really are the estate themselves. Chaucer uses this disguise to point out moral criticisms of each estate by dressing his pilgrims in a robe of social stereotypes which applies to certain individuals. For example, on the comparison of the smooth-looking Friar and the horrible- looking Summoner, Mann states:

Chaucer … turn[s] their procedure round in order to point to its [physical

appearance’s] origin in our irrational, instinctive reactions. The explicit moralising attitude to beauty and ugliness – that they are irrelevant beside considerations of moral worth – coexists, paradoxically, with an implicit admission of their relevance in the use of aesthetic imagery to recommend moral values” (192-93).

In essence, both pilgrims represent the same estate, but the characters’ individuality comes from an ambiguity and complexity that is a result of how the two pilgrims are perceived.

The venality, or corruptness, represented in the actions of the Friar and the Summoner are fundamentally alike, morally speaking, but because the Summoner is presented as a

physically disturbing being, and the Friar characterized as a physically pleasant individual, it affects how we as humans perceive them. Sometimes it can be difficult to point out the grounds of liking or disliking someone, but Chaucer’s imagery makes it easy in this case.

Chaucer diverges from presenting either a stereotypic character or estate, but he allows each estate to be to be judged according to its own standards, by drawing on stereotypical attitudes.

It is through these attitudes that Chaucer manipulates the stereotype of each estate, where the pilgrims who correspond to a traditional stereotype, such as the Friar, Summoner, and

Pardoner, are built up from satirical traditions, while the Knight and Parson, the good pilgrims, come from either instruction on their appropriate duties, or from a reversal of common satirical themes. Even as the Canterbury Tales is clearly estates satire in the

(21)

representation of these church figures, the satire is also a part of a long tradition against the Church. Where estates satire is related to satire written in Latin, and even overlaps it, they are not the same thing.

Satire in Relation to the Medieval Church

Much of satire produced in the Middle Ages between 9th and 16th century AD, however, was mostly written in Latin by clergy, for clergy, criticizing the ecclesiastical elite for selling and prostituting God’s grace, divine forgiveness, and justice (Kendrick 54-6). Church leaders were supposed to be prime examples of virtue for the common people and the rest of the clergy, but instead, some ambitious individuals within these higher ecclesiastical ranks corrupted Christian society, and the Church itself by committing simony, which refers to the act of selling church offices and roles. Originally during the Roman Empire from ca. 1st century BC to 5th century AD, “[Classical] satire was from the beginning a written text … aimed at Rome’s relatively small and elite reading culture, and created and disseminated through the support of private patrons” (Keane 40). Similarly, concerning satire in the Middle Ages, it was the elite of the laity and the clergy who were schooled in literature, rhetoric, and philosophy, all of which is significant in a satirist’s way of portraying his or her contemporary society.

Of the critical themes of medieval satire, venality and avarice were two frequent topics. Already in 1099, the satirical Tractus Garciae written by a canon of Toledo, who accompanied the archbishop, deals with the archbishop of Toledo’s quest for climbing higher on the clerical hierarchic ladder, made possible by simony (Kendrick 55). In the tract, gold and silver are allegorically represented by two martyred saints: Rufinus, which corresponds to

“ruddy gold”, and Albinus, which corresponds to “white silver.” The tract states: “[O]ffer the Roman pontiff the two martyrs through whom is granted entry the Roman Church … Ask

(22)

therefore through Silver [Albinus], and you shall receive, seek through Gold [Rufinus] and you shall find, knock through either martyr and it shall be opened unto you” (Thomson 20- 21). It parodies Matthew 7:7, which essentially deals with the Lord providing for his believers, but twists the passage into a satiric point where the Pope, in the position of God, will provide for them as long as his coffers are filled.

Satire in Latin was written for other clergymen, which is why it was allowed. It had a moral point to it where it concerned clergy members engaged in immoral activity as a way to remind the readers not to fall in the same immoral pattern. As discussed above, satire in the Middle Ages served as instructional, and showed its readers how one ought not to act. A possibility for Latin satirists to address their fellow clergymen might have been a concern for one’s neighbor, and a reminder for them not to stray off the Christian path. One can then argue that “satire’s most salient effect is not to actually punish its targets or change its audience’s views, but simply to convince that the genre performs an important function in society” (Keane 40). By reminding the audience, and in this case, the clergy, how not to act, an important function of satire is a social role where it attempts to keep its targets, e.g. other clergymen that could be on the brink of immorality, to uphold moral norms and laws. By keeping in mind that medieval satire often held a moral point, serving as instructional, modern definitions of satire often include the same point, while at the same time reaching out to a larger audience. In the next section, I will theorize satire in general and discuss how it can be used for the purpose of this thesis.

Theorizing satire

Northrop Frye, in his book Anatomy of Criticism (1957), suggests that for satire to function, one needs an object of attack, and one needs “wit or humor founded on fantasy or a sense of the grotesque or absurd” (224-225). This function, as stated earlier, is used to reveal and

(23)

discern social issues through different forms of ridicule, and it works by different means. By referring to a situation outside the text itself, through a fictional reality that is very similar to the readers’ situation, satire emphasizes the current situation’s inefficacy. The satirists point out what is wrong with society, and they do this by ridiculing an individual or an institution that is the cause of, or a factor in, social problems which the readers possibly have to endure.

As Brian A. Connery and Kirk Combe write about satire, “the one thing we know about satire is that it promises to tell us what we do not want to know – what we may, in fact, resist knowing” (1). The readers may resist this knowledge because its unpleasant truth may create oppositions between what is good and evil, not only on a textual or social level, but also between the reader and himself, where he risks staying in bad company if he agrees with the satirist, or face the risk of being labeled a hypocrite if he does not align oneself with her.

However, Quintero states that “satirists do not wither in despair, but on the contrary, feel compelled to express their dissent” and that they “write not merely out of personal

indignation, but with a sense of moral vocation and with a concern for the public interest” (1).

Satire serves to show the audience the consequence of one’s foolish acts by punishing the fool, or what the fool represents, but only through humanizing the subject. One cannot mock Adolf Hitler for being responsible for the extermination of six million Jews, Romani,

homosexuals, disabled, and political prisoners, because these are acts of pure evil. One can, however, satirize Hitler for the person, or the office he possesses, just like Charlie Chaplin does in his film The Great Dictator from 1940.

Chaplin plays Adenoid Hynkel, a non-Aryan man-child who is allowed to do what he wants in a world where he is surrounded by sycophants. As Gilbert Highet puts it: “Some villainies are too awful for us to despise. We can only shudder at them, and in horror turn away – or try to write a tragedy. Against such crimes, satire is almost impotent. Against all lesser crimes and against all follies, it is a powerful weapon” (23). For something to be made

(24)

satiric, there must be a perspective of humanizing the subject, or an iconoclastic perspective where the evil acts of the subject must be an act of error, and not pure evil (Quintero 2).

Paralleling this notion of satire against the Pardoner, who I argue is the most criticized pilgrims based on the severity of his stakes, it is only possible to satirize the Pardoner based on his peculiar appearance, which both humanizes and ridicules him. The stakes of losing everyone’s souls would be too serious to satirize alone, which is why the office and the character the Pardoner is, can be ridiculed.

Unlike with comedy or tragedy, satire’s purpose is not to purify the readers’

unresolved feelings and emotions through catharsis. Satire’s purpose is to invoke the same feelings as in a comedy or a tragedy, however, instead of creating an emotional harmony through character conflicts, a satiric work leaves the audience with no sense of reconciliation or resolution of the emotions and feelings that are evoked. Ronald Paulson states: “The satirist, in short, demands decisions of his reader[s], not mere feelings” because “he wishes to arouse [the readers’] energy to action, not purge it in vicarious experience” (15). It is through this emotional disharmony where the satirist “provokes mirth or sadness, a concern for the innocent or the self-destructive fool, or a revulsion for the deceitful knave”, which hopefully will lead to some sort of reaction from the readers and audience, directed towards the subject with either laughter or scorn (Quintero 3). This reaction is thus supposed to inspire action to resolve the audience’s own feelings, while also improve the current social situation in the eyes of the satirist.

It is important to note, however, that for a change to happen, one must assume that the satirist has the readers’ “best interests at heart and seeks improvement or reformation”, while both parties share a similar perception of social and moral standards (Quintero 3). A shared essential perception of standards, and the readers’ ability to compare the ideal situation to that of a problematic one, is key for change to happen. As Frye states, “to attack anything, writer

(25)

and audience must agree on its undesirability, which means that the content of a great deal of satire founded on national hatreds, snobbery, prejudice, and personal pique goes out of date quickly” (224). As a consequence, if there are no established social or moral standards, those who are targeted by satire may fail to recognize it and take literal offense by claiming that the satirist is a liar and a fool (Quintero 4). The audience can also fall in the same trap of not understanding that it is satire, which is why it is important with a common ground of reason so that there are no “confusions between literal fact and the truth of art” (Quintero 5).

To avoid confusion, it is important to clarify how satire ought to be understood in relation to parody and irony. Parody can be understood as “a form of imitation, but imitation characterized by ironic inversion, not always at the expense of the parodied text” (Hutcheon 6). By understanding irony as a discrepancy between what is expected and what actually happens, usually with a comic twist, Linda Hutcheon argues that “irony is the major rhetorical strategy deployed by the [parody] genre” (25). Ironic inversion then “evokes amusement, derision, and sometimes scorn” through what Highet argues is “distortion and exaggeration”

(69). Satiric parody is thus an imitation of an original, a copy where errors are pointed out, hidden facades are revealed, weaknesses are emphasized, and strengths are diminished (Highet 68).

Highet argues that the patterns of satire throughout the history of Western literature, including medieval and Renaissance satire, usually fall within three main shapes (13). These patterns or general principles then result in a pattern of satire. One of these shapes is

monologues where the satirist speaks behind a mask, speaking to the audience indirectly where she addresses the problems imposes her views on the public. The mask Highet discusses may be a device to protect the satirist because of unwanted attention. The satirist has to operate with an awareness of satire’s limitations which are the power of words, the influence wielded by the mocking figure, and the topics that may safely be addressed. The

(26)

supposed dangers of writing satire are better understood as a fiction cultivated by the genre by authors who are well-connected enough to be insulated from real threats (Keane 41). This may be evident of Chaucer’s social position as well, where it is not Chaucer the author who is satirizing pilgrims, but Chaucer the pilgrim. Much of the satire in the Canterbury Tales, is also projected by other pilgrims, who can act as different masks for Chaucer as a form of protection because it is not the words of Chaucer, but the words of the Friar, or the Miller, or the Reeve.

While Highet includes the mask, Dustin Griffin omits it, but still provides a sound explanation of satire:

A work of satire is designed to attack vice or folly. To this end it uses wit or ridicule

… It seeks to persuade an audience that something or someone is reprehensible or ridiculous … It engages in exaggeration and some sort of fiction. But satire does not forsake the “real world” entirely. Its victims come from that world, and it is this fact (together with a darker or sharper tone) that separates satire from pure comedy … Satire usually proceeds by means of clear reference to some moral standard or purposes (1).

Griffin’s modern definition of satire includes how works of fiction wittily exaggerate certain features in a near-real world, and how a moral standard is portrayed through the victimized characters. This explanation separates satire from comedy by having the victims appear as real, happening in a real world. However, as satire’s chief purpose in medieval literature is to correct vices, and not explicitly to spark a revolution, it is similar, but not the same as satire’s function in the modern age. Both modern and medieval theory on satire illuminates the aspects of satire the other one lacks. While estates satire presents the shortcomings of the different social classes in the Middle Ages, and Latin Satire, which overlaps with estates satire, is directed more towards correcting the vices of the clergy, modern understandings of satire encompass a larger perspective in what can be targeted, and how it is targeted more so than what medieval understandings of satire seem to do. Instead of criticizing a behavior to make the audience feel guilt, like medieval literature tends to do, modern understandings of

(27)

satire persuade its audience that something is ridiculous by letting them identify with the text’s victims. Modern satire highlights in Chaucer’s text, his invitation to the victims and potential victims to stand up to the abuse and to reject these figures that take advantage of them.

In relation to Chaucer’s use of satire in the Canterbury Tales, it seems to depart in some ways from a medieval expectation of what satire is supposed to do. His characters are not punished, and there is not much evidence for the correction of sin according to the satirical purpose of certain medieval literature. However, since medieval theories come up short in explaining what Chaucer is doing with satire, modern theories on satire may shed more light on how he diverges from typical medieval satire. Instead of correcting vices, Chaucer, in coherence with a modern understanding of satire, persuades his audience that the pilgrims, or estates, he satirizes, are in fact ridiculous. At the same time, Chaucer’s satire may serve to correct vices with clergy, like medieval satire usually did, although this does not appear to be the main purpose. Instead, the purpose of Chaucer’s satire seems to be that his readers can identify with the exemplum he provides in the form of the laity who almost fall victims for clerical abuse, but who instead overturn the situation the abusers have put them in, and end up ridiculing them instead.

(28)

Chapter 1 ‘He was the beste beggere in his hous’: The Friar’s Great Personality and Hidden Venality

For unto swich a worthy man as he Accorded nat, as by his facultee, To have with sike lazars aqueynetaunce (I: l. 242-45) This description captures the essence of Chaucer’s Friar, where the pursuit of money and a high social position comes at the cost of breaking mendicant vows explicitly for the orders of friars. These vows involve living like an imitation of Christ by caring for the souls of the sick and poor, while at the same time adopting a lifestyle of voluntary poverty. Chaucer, in his anti-mendicant satire, uses the Friar as the first pilgrim to put money above God by rejecting the poor and instead surrounding himself with wealthy people, as it is more financially lucrative. The Friar is ironically praised as he serves as an example for the rest of the orders of friars by being described by Chaucer in the General Prologue as a pillar of the Church, ‘a noble post’ (I: l. 214). The ironic praise is how Chaucer criticizes not only the Friar himself, but all mendicant orders. He does this through the satirical descriptions and actions of Friar Huberd, who appears in the General Prologue, and through Huberd’s double, Friar John, who acts as an extension of Huberd’s persona in the Summoner’s Tale.

These descriptions, however ambiguous, indicate that behind the Friar’s pleasant façade, he is a corrupt, greedy individual and that he serves as a representative for all four mendicant orders. In this chapter, I argue that by drawing on contemporary attitudes towards mendicancy, Chaucer criticizes it through satirical depiction. He does this, as I will show, through satirical remarks that at first are hidden behind a charismatic and pleasant character,

(29)

Summoner’s Tale. The light level of satirical wit which the Friar employs in his Tale is discussed in chapter two. In this first chapter, I will address Chaucer’s use of anti-mendicant satire and how it becomes more evident throughout the Friar’s portrait, only to be fully realized in the Summoner’s Tale, where the satirical tone becomes more serious, inflicting a more clear-cut social critique, as well as a result of the quarrel between the Friar and

Summoner. I will first introduce the historical background for mendicancy in medieval England, then address the Friar’s descriptive portrait in the General Prologue, before

addressing the friar represented in the Summoner’s Tale and how the two friars are connected to each other. In my discussion, the Friar and Friar Huberd refers to the pilgrim-friar, while the friar and Friar John refers to the friar portrayed in the Summoner’s Tale.

Historical Background

A friar is a member of a mendicant order, often called a brotherhood. Friars take the same vows as monks, which consists of vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience, but instead of living in cloistered asceticism like monks do, friars instead live in service to society. The profession came from mainland Europe to the British Isles at the beginning of the thirteenth century. After first facing severe criticisms from the locals, the four orders of Augustinian Hermits, Carmelites, Dominicans, and Franciscans came to eventually serve important purposes for the medieval Church, mostly in the urban centers of Britain. Brother Solomon, who was the first Franciscan convert in Britain, attests to this early struggle, stating that he was rejected by his family after conversion. In another situation, the inhabitants of Dover treated Dominicans, who had newly arrived, as spies (Geltner, “The Friar” 157). Despite having the locals expressing their reservations towards the new orders throughout the

thirteenth and fourteenth century, mendicant orders soon became popular and powerful on the British Isles. This was because they filled a spiritual and administrative gap left by the Church

(30)

in that they could “address the needs of a growing urban population” which the already established church institution could not (Geltner, “The Friar” 157).

The new orders also helped “define the boundaries of orthodoxy”, meaning that they introduced new devotional practices to prevent the decline of Christian morality at the cost of profit-economies, which are necessary for urban communities to prosper (Geltner “The Friar”

158). Religious mendicancy became a highly influential movement due to several factors which included “charismatic leadership, local pride, papal and royal support, rising rates of literacy, social and cultural accessibility, the promise of mobility (both social and

geographical), and a capacity to dovetail with urban elites’ political and economic agendas”

(Geltner, “The Friar” 158). By the end of the fourteenth century friars had filled many of the highest ecclesiastical ranks in Britain, as well as positions in royal administrations where they acted as “inquisitors, confessors, and bishops as well as urban and princely treasurers,

missionaries, and ambassadors” (Geltner, “The Friar” 158).

It was problematic that mendicants could possess powers that previously were

separated between the secular and regular clergy. Regular clergy consists of monks, while the secular clergy is represented by priests. Monks normally prayed in isolation for their own spiritual growth, and also received economic compensation for also praying for their benefactors’ and patrons’ souls (Geltner, “The Friar” 159). Priests, on the other hand, administered the sacraments. Friars, representing their own independent institutions, could carry out both priestly and monastic duties. The blurring of the lines between secular tasks and regular tasks gave cause for resentment towards friars, which is represented in the quarrel between Chaucer’s Friar and Summoner, who each represent different clerical institutions in competition with each other. The merge, however, between secular and regular ecclesiastical duties was indeed a success, despite that it could be undermined by opportunistic individuals, thus damaging the mendicant institution. This damage is represented in how Chaucer’s Friar

(31)

conducts his profession, where he shows how both Friar Huberd of the General Prologue and Friar John of the Summoner’s Tale fall short of their ecclesiastic duties.

Anti-mendicant satire targets the abuses and malpractice mendicants were associated with.

David Salter states that “the emergence of anti-fraternal satire can be dated very precisely to the middle of the thirteenth century, and the comically disparaging image of the friar which is perpetuated proved to be extremely durable and long-standing” (25). While anti-mendicant satire refers to satire against specifically mendicant orders, anti-fraternal satire could also be applied to secular clergy such as monks. In this context, the terms are however used

interchangeably. Mendicants’ autonomy made them difficult to control, because they answered to either themselves or the pope, which could spark conflicts between friars and everyone else. As Guy Geltner puts it: “friars were often accused of collaborating with external enemies: the emperor, the pope, a hostile ruler; or vice versa: an invading power would target them for siding with the local population” (Antifraternalism 63). These attitudes provide inspiration for satirists to write about friars to express disdain and critique

malpractice. This critique is evident in other works such as Gower’s Mirour de l’Omme where the “friars ‘Ipocresie’ [Hypocrisy] and ‘Flateries’ [Flattery] are hand in glove” (Mann 38).

The notions of flattery and hypocrisy are traditional features of anti-mendicant satire, which relies on mocking friars’ “gift of the gab;” referring to the ability of having a highly

persuasive tongue (Mann 37). Like the Friar in the Canterbury Tales, Faux Semblant in de Meun’s Roman de la rose “cloaks his deception with ‘softe … and pleasaunt words” (Mann 38). The stereotypic notion of friars using words to influence the people around them is a prominent feature in anti-mendicant satire. This notion may possibly stem from friars’

scholastic practice, where they trained and honed their debating skills (Geltner, “The Friar”

166). Friars could thus be mocked for all their vices, be it sexual relations, exploitation, or general misconduct.

(32)

Among the critics who discuss the Friar and anti-mendicant satire, Salter states that Chaucer’s satire is not only done to “ridicule and disparage the corruption of friars, but to provoke feelings of indignation at their conduct” (23). Derrick Pitard elaborates on this idea by explaining that Chaucer’s use of vernacular language could imply a mocking resistance towards the mendicant malpractice (208). Helen Phillips argues that both the Friar and the Summoner (who also will be addressed to an extent) “are primarily examples of established literary traditions of anticlerical satire” because they voice the hatred between the rival professions, while the humor in the Summoner’s Tale, Robert Hasenfratz argues, “uses inversion to drive home its satirical point” (Phillips 103; Hasenfratz 257). In the rest of this chapter, I will address Chaucer’s use of satire against the Friar.

The General Prologue

In the General Prologue, it seems that Chaucer atypically follows the framework of medieval social estates of representing first those who fight, then those who pray, and those who labor, in a different order than Phillip’s definition. Chaucer starts with the description of the Knight and his servant, the Yeoman, and continues with describing clergy members in the form of a nun, prioress, a second nun, a monk, and then the Friar. While both nuns’ descriptions are omitted, the Prioress, the Monk, and the Friar are described in detail, and they show a steady decline in moral standards (Cooper 40). When Chaucer presents the Friar, there is a

possibility of him being the pilgrim with the most corrupted morals of the three. The Prioress focuses more on her social status and courtly love than her professional calling, displaying a distance between the ecclesiastical office and being a woman, while the Monk disregards monastic rules, as he is described as ‘reccheles’ (I: l. 179), meaning heedless of rules (Cooper 40). Neither the Prioress’s vanity or the Monk’s rule-breaking harm anyone directly (Cooper 40).

(33)

However, the Friar’s infringement of his office is more extreme than the Prioress and Monk, though this does not become clear at first because the description of the Friar seems overly positive. The introduction in the General Prologue states:

A Frere ther was, a wantowne and a merye, jovial/pleasure-loving, merry A lymytour, a ful solempne man. licensed friar, dignified/important In alle the ordres foure is noon that kan the four orders of friars, knows So muchel of daliaunce and fair langage. much, sociability

He hadde maad ful many a mariage Of yonge women at his owene cost.

Unto his ordre he was a noble post. supporter (pillar of the Church) (I: l. 208-14)

The initial passage describing the Friar is excessively praising so that the Friar comes off as a well-liked, respectable, ‘solempne’ and ‘merye’ man, while he also serves as an important figure of his order. However, the word ‘wantowne’ (I: l. 208) suggests ambiguously that the Friar is not what he seems. In the Riverside Chaucer, ‘wantowne’ is glossed as jovial or pleasure-loving, but the Middle English Dictionary, shows that the word also can relate to sexual indulgences, being extravagant, and of a person lacking discipline, or is difficult to control, which hints to the reader where the description of the Friar is going (Benson 27;

MED). Being a ‘lymytour’ (I: l. 209) means that the Friar was licensed by his order to beg in a specific district, and he seems to have a well-connected network, with his ‘muchel of

daliaunce’ (I: l. 211), which means sociability, to which he uses by means of his ‘fair langage’

(Benson 27). This passage serves as an example of the abuse of begging, because friars, in general, were supposed to take care of the outcasts in society, and not surround themselves with people of high class as an easy access to wealth when begging. Mann adds that “the ambiguity of the word ‘daliaunce’ prevents us [the readers] from being sure that the Friar’s eloquence has a sexual aim” (39). While Langland in Piers Plowman also condemns all the four orders of friars stating that they were ‘prechynge the peple for profit of [the wombe]’

(P59), Chaucer never specifies which order the Friar belongs to. Instead, he concentrates his

(34)

criticism of all orders in one character, by describing the Friar as being the best friar of all the four orders.

The accessibility to money can thus explain how the Friar weds so many couples ‘at his owene cost’ (I: l. 213), but it does not explain why he, in his seemingly altruistic ways, pays for them. In the portrait of the Friar, we find descriptions which address his relationship with women. They are described as ‘yonge women’ (I: l. 213), ‘faire wyves’ (I: l. 234),

‘worthy women’ (I: l. 217) , and ‘tappestere’ (I: l. 241), meaning barmaid, and such words in relation to a friar who has taken the vow of chastity, has no natural connection to him. The subtle descriptions may indicate that the Friar is a womanizer because of his smooth

appearance, winning nature, and the authority of his office. The Friar may thus be in need of marrying off a young woman quickly if he has laid with her. Mann argues that “charges of spiritual seduction [can] readily become charges of bodily seduction” (40). Like a sailor has a woman in every port, and like the Pardoner claims he has a ‘joly wenche in every toun’ (VI: l.

455), a friar who travels frequently, could easily “have secret conferences with women”

wherever he goes (Mann 40). The intention of these deceptive descriptions remains subtle, because the emphasis on the Friar’s façade is effective in hiding his true self beneath praise that does not seem wholly ironic at first.

Chaucer continues the Friar’s description:

Ful wel beloved and famulier was he

With frankeleyns over al in his contree, landowners, everywhere And eek with worthy women of the toun; also

For he hadde power of confessioun, licensed to hear confessions As seyde himself, moore than a curat,

For of his ordre he was licenciat.

Ful swetely herde he confessioun, And pleasaunt was his absolucioun:

He was an esy man to yeve penaunce, lenient, give

Ther as he wiste to have a good pitaunce. expected, gift (literally food allowed to members of a religious house)

(I: l. 215-24)

(35)

In the elaborations of his social network and his profession, the Friar comes off as a highly likable character, but despite being popular, the Friar neglects his monastic duties. He is well- known with both landowners (I: l. 216) and ‘worthy women’ (I: l. 217) across towns and regions because he possesses the ‘power of confessioun’ (I: l. 218), as friars usually had.

Friars were often highly educated due to fraternal regulation concerning age and educational requirements because hearing confessions was important work, and it was important for the confessor to know how to extract the sins from the confessant well enough to save their soul (Pitard 220). Friars and priests were the clergy that were able to hear confessions and deliver absolution through penance and contrition given by the sinners. This friar was no different in that he heard confessions and absolved people when penance was given. In fact, the Friar claimed himself to be an ‘esy man to yeve [give] penaunce’ (I: l. 223) more than any ‘curat’

(I: l. 219), meaning parish priest (Davis 30). Chaucer addresses the contemporary common issue of rivalry between regular and secular clergy, where friars capitalize on the laity’s spiritual needs at the expense of the local parish priests’ clerical tasks, such as penance and absolution. The Friar’s absolution is described as ‘pleasaunt’ (I: l. 222), because he ‘wiste [knew, expected] to have a good pitaunce’ (I: l. 224), meaning he would receive a gift after delivering absolution. Chaucer subverts a divine action and makes a satirical point of critique out of it. By handing out absolutions easily and pleasantly, the Friar was sure to profit from it in the form of a gift given to the Friar personally.

This gift may come in many forms, whether it be an economic gift or a sexual gift.

These kinds of profits can also come in a more carnal form. As Geltner expresses his thoughts on this issue, he states that “certain friars were accused of using their skills as speakers, their

‘fair langage’, to their own advantage, as a means of exhorting money and seducing women”

(“The Friar” 166). Compared to Pierce the Ploughmans Crede it seems that Chaucer does keep with the social stereotype of friars being womanizers where their ’glauerynge wordes’

(36)

are “primarily a tool in their seduction of women” (Mann 38). It certainly helps the Friar’s situation when Chaucer then describes him as being ‘swich a worthy man as he’ (I: l. 243), with a sensual lisp (I: l. 264), and eyes twinkling ‘as doon [do] the sterres [stars] in the frosty nyght’ (I: l. 268) to add to his enticing looks and manner.

The Friar’s good looks, manner, and profession enables him to take advantage of people, as the next passage reveals:

For unto povre ordre for to yive poor, give

Is signe that a man is wel yshryve; confessed/penitent

For if he yaf, he dorste make avaunt, for if a man gave, the Friar dared to assert

He wiste that a man was repentaunt; knew For many a man so hard is of his herte,

He may nat wepe, althogh hym sore smerte. cannot/is not able to, he sorely/painfully suffers Therfore in stede of wepynge and preyeres

Men moote yeve silver to the povre freres. must give (I: l. 225-32)

If a man is ‘wel yshryve’ (I: l. 227), indicating that he has confessed sufficiently, he should give enough money so that his penance represents his sincerity in his contrition (I: l. 228).

Although something causes him ‘smerte’, pain, which could be something the man has confessed, he should not ‘wepe’, but instead give money to the friaries: ‘men moote yeve [must give] silver to the povre freres’ (I: l. 232). Besides manipulating men’s emotions, corrupted friars also preyed on them for other economic reasons. One of the premises for friars’ urban mission was disposable income (Geltner, “The Friar” 166). The bleeding wound of excess wealth, which was often called “the friars’ spiritual balm”, meant that the friars did their best in relieving the laity of the spiritual wound caused by having too much money (Geltner, “The Friar” 166). This was usually done with approval from the papacy, but

Chaucer opens up the possibility of a collusion where someone could abuse this system. This kind of abuse shows how Chaucer satirizes the Friar’s profession, but also prevents the Friar from being placed in solely a good or evil category. Despite his freely given, but costly

(37)

absolutions, the Friar is much more concerned with the material effects these absolutions have, rather than a positive spiritual effect which could possibly harm people’s spiritual well- being. The Friar preys on the laity’s faith in his office, and of him cleansing them of sin in exchange for material gifts. The way Chaucer uses ‘povre [poor] freres’ (I: l. 232) ironically plays on the idea that friars, in general, were poor people, traveling around in rags, begging and hearing confessions.

The Friar, however, does not travel around in rags nor does he seem very poor, as the next passage states:

His typet was ay farsed ful of knyves dangling tip of the hood, stuffed And pynnes, for to yeven faire wyves. give

And certeinly he hadde a murye note: merry/pleasing, voice Wel koude he synge and pleyen on a rote; stringed instrument

Of yeddynges he baar outrely the pris. for reciting ballads (yeddinges), he absolutely (outrely) took the prize His nekke whit was as flour-de-lys; lily

(I: l. 233-38)

It is in this description much of Huberd’s physical attractiveness lies. His ‘typet’ (I: l. 233), the dangling tip of the hood, is stuffed with knives and pins, ‘pynnes’ (I: l. 234) which he gives to pretty women. His ‘nekke whit’, white neck, is compared to the French fleur-de-lis, a symbol connected to courtly love, which again suggests inappropriate relationships with women. A man who has a rich cape and has enough economic stability to give away possible courting gifts to fair ladies, is not a person who is in dire financial need, like the ideal brother of the order ought to be. The Friar is also described with a pleasant voice, ‘murye note’ (I: l.

235), which is so good that he metaphorically wins prizes for reciting ballads for being the best. The ‘murye note,’ however, can be seen as a parody of an aspect of the friar’s profession as St Francis called his followers ‘joculatores Domini’, meaning God’s minstrels (Mann 45).

St Francis himself has been known to, in moments of spiritual ecstasy, “mimic the playing of a viol, and sing in front of the faithful”, which could possibly have encouraged his followers

'A Bettre Felawe Sholde Men Noght Fynde': Satirical Criticism of Chaucer's Friar, Summoner, and Pardoner